Social condition is commonly the result of circumstances, sometimes of laws, oftener still
of these two causes united; but when once established, it may justly be considered as itself the
source of almost all the laws, the usages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations:
whatever it does not produce, it modifies. If we would become acquainted with the legislation
and the manners of a nation, therefore, we must begin by the study of its social condition.

THE STRIKING CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE
ANGLO-AMERICANS IS ITS ESSENTIAL DEMOCRACY.

The first immigrants
of New England--Their equality--Aristocratic laws introduced in
the South--Period of the Revolution--Change in the laws of
inheritance--effects produced by this change--Democracy carried
to its utmost limits in the new states of the West--Equality of
mental endowments.

MANY important observations suggest themselves upon the social
condition of the Anglo-Americans; but there is one that takes
precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans
is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation
of the colonies, and it is still more strongly marked at the
present day.

I have stated in the preceding chapter that great equality
existed among the immigrants who settled on the shores of New
England. Even the germs of aristocracy were never planted in that
part of the Union. The only influence which obtained there was
that of intellect; the people became accustomed to revere certain
names as representatives of knowledge and virtue. Some of their
fellow citizens acquired a power over the others that might truly
have been called aristocratic if it had been capable of transmission from father to son.

This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the
.
southwest of that river, and as far as the Floridas, the case was
different. In most of the states situated to the southwest of the
Hudson some great English proprietors had settled who had imported with them aristocratic
principles and the English law of
inheritance. I have explained the reasons why it was impossible
ever to establish a powerful aristocracy in America; these
reasons existed with less force to the southwest of the Hudson.
In the South one man, aided by slaves, could cultivate a great
extent of country; it was therefore common to see rich landed
proprietors. But their influence was not altogether aristocratic,
as that term is understood in Europe, since they possessed no
privileges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on
by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and
consequently no patronage. Still, the great proprietors south of
the Hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and tastes
of its own and forming the center of political action. This kind
of aristocracy sympathized with the body of the people, whose
passions and interests it easily embraced; but it was too weak
and too shortlived to excite either love or hatred. This was the
class which headed the insurrection in the South and furnished
the best leaders of the American Revolution.

At this period society was shaken to its center. The people,
in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire
of exercising the authority that it had acquired; its democratic
tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the
mother country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The influence of individuals gradually
ceased to be felt, and custom
and law united to produce the same result.

But the law of inheritance was the last step to equality. I
am surprised that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed
to this law a greater influence on human affairs.1 It is true
that these laws belong to civil affairs; but they ought,
nevertheless, to be placed at the head of all political
institutions; for they exercise an incredible influence upon the
social state of a people, while political laws show only what this state already is. They have,
moreover, a sure and uniform manner of operating upon society,
affecting, as it were, generations yet unborn. Through their
means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the future
lot of his fellow creatures. When the legislator has once
regulated the law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. The
machine once put in motion will go on for ages, and advance, as
if self-guided, towards a point indicated beforehand. When framed
in a particular manner, this law unites, draws together, and
vests property and power in a few hands; it causes an
aristocracy, so to speak, to spring out of the ground. If formed
on opposite principles, its action is still more rapid; it
divides, distributes, and disperses both property and power.
Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who despair of
arresting its motion endeavor at least to obstruct it by
difficulties and impediments. They vainly seek to counteract its
effect by contrary efforts; but it shatters and reduces to powder
every obstacle, until we can no longer see anything but a moving
and impalpable cloud of dust, which signals the coming of the
Democracy. When the law of inheritance permits, still more when
it decrees, the equal division of a father's property among all
his children, its effects are of two kinds: it is important to
distinguish them from each other, although they tend to the same
end.

As a result of the law of inheritance, the death of each
owner brings about a revolution in property; not only do his
possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, since
they are parceled into shares, which become smaller and smaller
at each division. This is the direct and as it were the physical
effect of the law. In the countries where legislation establishes
the equality of division, property, and particularly landed
fortunes, have a permanent tendency to diminish. The effects of
such legislation, however, would be perceptible only after a
lapse of time if the law were abandoned to its own working; for,
supposing the family to consist of only two children (and in a
country peopled as France is, the average number is not above
three ), these children, sharing between them the fortune of both
parents, would not be poorer than their father or mother.

But the law of equal division exercises its influence not
merely upon the property itself, but it affects the minds of the
heirs and brings their passions into play. These indirect
consequences tend
.
powerfully to the destruction of large fortunes, and especially
of large domains.

Among nations whose law of descent is founded upon the right
of primogeniture, landed estates often pass from generation to
generation without undergoing division; the consequence of this
is that family feeling is to a certain degree incorporated with
the estate. The family represents the estate, the estate the
family, whose name, together with its origin, its glory, its
power, and its virtues, is thus perpetuated in an imperishable
memorial of the past and as a sure pledge of the future.

When the equal partition of property is established by law,
the intimate connection is destroyed between family feeling and
the preservation of the paternal estate; the property ceases to
represent the family; for, as it must inevitably be divided after
one or two generations, it has evidently a constant tendency to
diminish and must in the end be completely dispersed. The sons of
the great landed proprietor, if they are few in number, or if
fortune befriends them, may indeed entertain the hope of being as
wealthy as their father, but not of possessing the same property
that he did; their riches must be composed of other elements than
his. Now, as soon as you divest the landowner of that interest in
the preservation of his estate which he derives from association,
from tradition, and from family pride, you may be certain that,
sooner or later, he will dispose of it; for there is a strong
pecuniary interest in favor of selling, as floating capital
produces higher interest than real property and is more readily
available to gratify the passions of the moment.

Great landed estates which have once been divided never come
together again; for the small proprietor draws from his land a
better revenue, in proportion, than the large owner does from
his; and of course he sells it at a higher rate.2 The reasons of
economy, therefore, which have led the rich man to sell vast
estates will prevent him all the more from buying little ones in
order to form a large one.

What is called family pride is often founded upon an
illusion of self-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize
himself, as it were, in his great-grandchildren. Where family
pride ceases to act, individual selfishness comes into play. When the idea of
family becomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks
of his present convenience; he provides for the establishment of
his next succeeding generation and no more. Either a man gives up
the idea of perpetuating his family, or at any rate he seeks to
accomplish it by other means than by a landed estate.

Thus, not only does the law of partible inheritance render
it difficult for families to preserve their ancestral domains
entire, but it deprives them of the inclination to attempt it and
compels them in some measure to co-operate with the law in their
own extinction. The law of equal distribution proceeds by two
methods: by acting upon things, it acts upon persons; by
influencing persons, it affects things. By both these means the
law succeeds in striking at the root of landed property, and
dispersing rapidly both families and fortunes.3

Most certainly it is not for us, Frenchmen of the nineteenth
century, who daily witness the political and social changes that
the law of partition is bringing to pass, to question its
influence. It is perpetually conspicuous in our country,
overthrowing the walls of our dwellings, and removing the
landmarks of our fields. But although it has produced great
effects in France, much still remains for it to do. Our
recollections, opinions, and habits present powerful obstacles to
its progress.

In the United States it has nearly completed its work of
destruction, and there we can best study its results. The English
laws concerning the transmission of property were abolished in
almost all the states at the time of the Revolution. The law of
entail was so modified as not materially to interrupt the free
circulation of property.4 The first generation having passed
away, estates began to be parceled out; and the change became more and more rapid with
the progress of time. And now, after a lapse of a little more
than sixty years, the aspect of society is totally altered; the
families of the great landed proprietors are almost all
commingled with the general mass. In the state of New York, which
formerly contained many of these, there are but two who still
keep their heads above the stream; and they must shortly
disappear. The sons of these opulent citizens have become
merchants, lawyers, or physicians. Most of them have lapsed into
obscurity. The last trace of hereditary ranks and distinctions is
destroyed; the law of partition has reduced all to one level.

I do not mean that there is any lack of wealthy individuals
in the United States; I know of no country, indeed, where the
love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men
and where a profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of
the permanent equality of property. But wealth circulates with
inconceivable rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare to
find two succeeding generations in the full enjoyment of it.

This picture, which may, perhaps, be thought to be
overcharged, still gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking
place in the new states of the West and Southwest. At the end of
the last century a few bold adventurers began to penetrate into
the valley of the Mississippi, and the mass of the population
very soon began to move in that direction: communities unheard of
till then suddenly appeared in the desert. States whose names
were not in insistence a few years before, claimed their place
in the American Union; and in the Western settlements we may
behold democracy arrived at its utmost limits. In these states,
founded offhand and as it were by chance, the inhabitants are but
of yesterday. Scarcely known to one another, the nearest
neighbors are ignorant of each other's history. In this part of
the American continent, therefore, the population has escaped the
influence not only of great names and great wealth, but even of
the natural aristocracy of knowledge and virtue. None is there
able to wield that respectable power which men willingly grant to
the remembrance of a life spent in doing good before their eyes.
The new states of the West are already inhabited, but society has
no existence among them.

It is not only the fortunes of men that are equal in
America; even their acquirements partake in some degree of the
same uniformity. I do not believe that there is a country in the
world where,
.
in proportion to the population, there are so few ignorant and at
the same time so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is
within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely
to be obtained by any. This is not surprising; it is, in fact,
the necessary consequence of what I have advanced above. Almost
all the Americans are in easy circumstances and can therefore
obtain the first elements of human knowledge.

In America there are but few wealthy persons; nearly all
Americans have to take a profession. Now, every profession
requires an apprenticeship. The Americans can devote to general
education only the early years of life. At fifteen they enter
upon their calling, and thus their education generally ends at
the age when ours begins. If it is continued beyond that point,
it aims only towards a particular specialized and profitable
purpose; one studies science as one takes up a business; and one
takes up only those applications whose immediate practicality is
recognized.

In America most of the rich men were formerly poor; most of
those who now enjoy leisure were absorbed in business during
their youth; the consequence of this is that when they might have
had a taste for study, they had no time for it, and when the time
is at their disposal, they have no longer the inclination.
There is no class, then, in America, in which the taste for
intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and
leisure and by which the labors of the intellect are held in
honor. Accordingly, there is an equal want of the desire and the
power of application to these objects.

A middling standard is fixed in America for human knowledge.
All approach as near to it as they can; some as they rise, others
as they descend. Of course, a multitude of persons are to be
found who entertain the same number of ideas on religion,
history, science, political economy, legislation, and government.
The gifts of intellect proceed directly from God, and man cannot
prevent their unequal distribution. But it is at least a
consequence of what I have just said that although the capacities
of men are different, as the Creator intended they should be, the
means that Americans find for putting them to use are equal.

In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble
from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually
destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled that we can
scarcely assign to it any degree of influence on the course of
affairs.
.

The democratic principle, on the contrary, has gained so
much strength by time, by events, and by legislation, as to have
become not only predominant, but all-powerful. No family or
corporate authority can be perceived; very often one cannot even
discover in it any very lasting individual influence.

America, then, exhibits in her social state an extraordinary
phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of
fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their
strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age
of which history has preserved the remembrance.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE ANGLO
AMERICANS

THE political consequences of such a social condition as
this are easily deducible.

It is impossible to believe that equality will not
eventually find its way into the political world, as it does
everywhere else. To conceive of men remaining forever unequal
upon a single point, yet equal on all others, is impossible; they
must come in the end to be equal upon all.

Now, I know of only two methods of establishing equality in
the political world; rights must be given to every citizen, or
none at all to anyone. For nations which are arrived at the same
stage of social existence as the Anglo-Americans, it is,
therefore, very difficult to discover a medium between the
sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man: and it
would be vain to deny that the social condition which I have been
describing is just as liable to one of these consequences as to
the other.

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality
that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This
passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but
there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for
equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful
to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery
to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social
condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the
contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not
the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their
idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty and,
if they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them
without equality, and they would rather perish than lose it.

On the other hand, in a state where the citizens are all
practically equal, it becomes difficult for them to preserve
their independence against the aggressions of power. No one among
them being strong enough to engage in the struggle alone with
advantage, nothing but a general combination can protect their
liberty. Now, such a union is not always possible.

From the same social position, then, nations may derive one
or the other of two great political results; these results are
extremely different from each other, but they both proceed from
the same cause.

The Anglo-Americans are the first nation who, having been
exposed to this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to
escape the dominion of absolute power. They have been allowed by
their circumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by their morals to establish and
maintain the sovereignty of the people.

Footnotes

1. I understand by the law of inheritance all those laws
whose principal object it is to regulate the distribution of
property after the death of its owner. The law of entail is of
this number: it certainly prevents the owner from disposing of
his possessions before his death; but this is solely with the
view of preserving them entire for the heir. The principal
object, therefore, of the law of entail is to regulate the
descent of property after the death of its owner; its other
provisions are merely means to this end.
2 I do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates
his land better, but he cultivates it with more ardor and care;
so that he makes up by his labor for his want of skill.
3 Land being the most stable kind of property, we find from
to time rich individuals who are disposed to make great
sacrifices in order to obtain it and who willingly forfeit a
considerable part of their income to make sure of the rest. But
these are accidental cases. The preference for landed property is
no longer found habitually in any class except among the poor.
The small landowner, who has less information, less imagination,
and less prejudice than the great one, is generally occupied with
the desire of increasing his estate: and it often happens that by
inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of trade he is
gradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the tendency
that leads men to divide their estates, there exists another
which incites them to add to them. This tendency, which is
sufficient to prevent estates from being divided ad infinitum, is
not strong enough to create great territorial possessions,
certainly not to keep them up in the same family.
4 See Appendix G.